James Risen seeks Eric Holder meeting on subpoena

8/7/13 7:50 PM EDT

Lawyers for New York Times reporter James Risen have asked to meet Attorney General Eric Holder to argue that continuing to press for Risen's testimony in a leak case would run afoul of the Justice Department's recently revised guidelines for investigations involving the news media.

In a July 25 letter to Holder, Risen's legal team contended it would be "utterly inconsistent with the guidelines" for federal prosecutors to keep up their campaign to force Risen to testify about his sources for a 2006 book that discussed a CIA effort to trip up Iran's nuclear program more than a decade ago.

A former CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, has been indicted in connection with alleged leaks to Risen.

The letter was sent a few days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, overturned a trial court judge's decision that a reporter's privilege likely protected Risen from revealing his sources.

"We are, of course, well aware that the Department of Justice has previously urged on the Court of Appeals...that 'no circumstantial evidence or combination thereof is as probative as a [reporter's] testimony or as certain to forcelose the possibility of reasonable doubt' because 'a reporter is the only witness to the crime," wrote former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York David Kelley, who represents Risen. "That position was persuasive as a matter of law to two of the three members of the Court. But it rests with you and the DOJ to determine what approach to take as a matter of ongoing policy."

"You may follow the route set forth in your new Guidelines....Such an approach would, we think, inevitably lead you to abandon the effort to require Mr. Risen to testify," Kelley added in the letter, obtained Wednesday by POLITICO and posted here. Kelley also wrote that if Holder keeps up the legal battle for Risen's testimony, "the new Guidelines will be a quickly forgotten promise."

Asked about the letter Wednesday, a Justice Department spokesman referred to a statement the department issued after the 4th Circuit ruling. "We are examining the next steps in the prosecution of this case," the statement said.